Case No COMP/M.2337 - NESTLE / RALSTON PURINA
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EN Case No COMP/M.2337 - NESTLE / RALSTON PURINA Only the English text is available and authentic. REGULATION (EEC) No 4064/89 MERGER PROCEDURE Article 6(2) NON-OPPOSITION Date: 27/07/2001 Also available in the CELEX database Document No 301M2337 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 27.07.2001 In the published version of this decision, PUBLIC VERSION some information has been omitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 concerning MERGER PROCEDURE non-disclosure of business secrets and ARTICLE 6(2) DECISION other confidential information. The omissions are shown thus […]. Where possible the information omitted has been replaced by ranges of figures or a general To the notifying party: description. Subject : Case No COMP/M.2337 – Nestlé / Ralston Purina Date of notification : 15.06.2001 pursuant article 4 of Council regulation n°4064/89 1. On 15 June 2001, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 by which the undertaking Nestlé S.A. (« Nestlé », Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Ralston Purina Company (« Ralston Purina », USA) by way of purchase of shares. 2. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. I. THE PARTIES 3. Nestlé is the ultimate parent company of the Nestlé Group. The Nestlé Group is and has traditionally been involved primarily in the production, marketing and sale of a large variety of food products, including pet food. In May 1998, Nestlé acquired Spillers Pet Food business from Dalgety Plc, increasing substantially its presence in the pet food market. That proposed concentration was notified to the Commission on 27 February 1998, and was declared compatible with the Common Market by Commission’s decision of 2 April 1998 (Case No IV/M. 1127 Nestlé/Dalgety). 4. Ralston Purina is an American based company. The principal activities of Ralston Purina are the manufacture and sale of pet foods and cat box fillers. Ralston Purina is primarily active in the United States and Canada. In Europe, Ralston Purina is active through Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Bruxelles/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium Telephone: exchange 299.11.11 Telex: COMEU B 21877. Telegraphic address: COMEUR Brussels. undertakings, which are under its direct or indirect control. In Spain, Ralston Purina is active through Gallina Blanca Purina S. A., Barcelona, a joint venture company owned on a 50 : 50 basis by Ralston Purina and Agrolimen S. A., a Spanish privately held company. Gallina Blanca Purina S. A. owns a production facility in Spain and sells directly in Spain the whole range of Ralston Purina pet food products, produced either in its own factory in Spain or in other European factories of Ralston Purina. II. CONCENTRATION 5. The concentration concerns the acquisition by Nestlé of sole control of Ralston Purina Company according to Article 3 (1) (b) Regulation 4064/89. The proposed transaction therefore constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. III. COMMUNITY DIMENSION 6. The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover1 of more than EUR 2.5 billion (in 2000 Nestlé […], Ralston Purina […]). In each of France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, the combined aggregate turnover of the parties is more than EUR 100 million, and the aggregate turnover of each of the parties is also in excess of EUR 25 million in each of the above Member States. Finally, the aggregate Community-wide turnover of each of the parties is more than EUR 100 million (in 2000 Nestlé […], Ralston Purina […]), and the undertakings concerned do not achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate Community-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The operation therefore has a Community dimension. It does not constitute a co-operation case under the EEA Agreement. 7. According to Article 8.3(b) of the EEA Agreement and Protocol 3 to that Agreement, pet food products are among those that are not covered by the EEA Agreement. Consequently, this decision does not relate to the effects of the notified transaction in Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. IV. THE RELEVANT MARKETS RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKETS 8. The principal categories of pet food affected by the operation are industrial dog and cat food. In addition, as a supplement to their cat and dog food business, Nestlé and Ralston Purina both sell pet food accessories. This category includes a wide variety of products such as cat litter, cat and dog hygiene products, cat and dog toys and leatherwear, bird care, fish care etc. Whether the pet food accessory category constitutes one or several separate relevant product markets can be left open, since irrespective of the product market definition chosen the concentration does not create or strengthen a dominant 1 Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Merger Regulation and the Commission Notice on the calculation of turnover (OJ C66, 2.3.1998, p25). To the extent that figures include turnover for the period before 1.1.1999, they are calculated on the basis of average ECU exchange rates and translated into EUR on a one-for-one basis. 2 position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the EEA or any substantial part of that area. In the following the focus is, therefore, exclusively on dog and cat food. 9. Within the pet food family, but aside from dry dog food, wet dog food, dry cat food and wet cat food there is a broad variety of dog and cat snacks and treats. These products are used between meals mainly as a reward. Most of these products do not offer a complete and balanced diet. Therefore they cannot substitute dog and cat food and are typically priced much higher. These products form two separate product markets of snacks and treats for dogs and snacks and treats for cats. A. CAT / DOG PETFOOD 10. The market investigation carried out in this case has confirmed that industrial dog food and industrial cat food cannot be substituted for each other and belong to separate product markets. Dogs and cats have different nutritional requirements. (See also Commission’s decision of 13.03.1995, Case No IV/M. 554 Dalgety Plc./The Quaker Oats Company; Commission’s decision of 2.4.1998, Case No IV/M. 1127, Nestlé/Dalgety). B. WET / DRY PET FOOD (WHITHIN CAT AND DOG) 11. The parties submitted that the relevant product market should be defined on the basis that there is a separate market for industrial dog food and another one for industrial cat food, leaving open whether wet and dry formulations of cat and dog food are to be regarded as separate markets. Nevertheless, they underlined a series of differences and factors pointing at the existence of separate markets for each type of dog and cat food. For example, they stated that production processes, ingredients, appearance, texture, aroma, palatability, and packaging utilized differ significantly between wet and dry products, as well as average nutritional values. 12. The market investigation carried out for the purpose of this case has largely indicated that a subdivision of the cat and dog food markets into wet and dry formulations is justified, as wet and dry formulations do not appear to be substitutable on the demand side. Wet and dry products normally satisfy different nutritional needs. The wet food for dogs and cats is also generally more expensive than the dry variants, due to the different average nutritional values and to the higher packaging costs for wet pet food. The market structure for each category is also different in terms of the market position of each supplier. It may therefore be concluded that dry dog, wet dog, dry cat, wet cat products each constitute a separate product market. 13. To some extent manufacturers of industrial pet food offer their products as “economy”, “mainstream” or “premium”. These categories, which do not have a clearly defined scope generally connote quality differences and lower, medium and higher prices. Pricing, however, appears to be on a continuum with no clear break points. Moreover, price promotions often obscure price differences between these products, of which retailers normally strive to offer a full range. Given the full substitutability of these products to serve the nutritional and dietary needs of dogs and cats the parties submit that a further segmentation of the relevant product markets is not justified. The market investigation carried out in this case has not indicated that a further subdivision would lead to materially different conclusions and the question can therefore be left open for the purpose of the decision. 3 14. Pet food is generally sold through two channels of distribution, namely grocery and non- grocery outlets (pet shops, veterinarians, etc.). It has been indicated that the latter types of outlets are normally aimed at offering products which are recognised by veterinary and specialised magazines as being the best in terms of nutritional value. On the contrary, the typical grocery outlet is more aimed at customers wishing to save time and money while appreciating a one stop shop facility for the family's needs. However, the distinction between grocery and non-grocery can be left open for the purpose of the decision, since the assessment of the competitive impact of the operation would not be affected, irrespective of whether this distinction were to be maintained.